Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-07-26
The Supreme Court.

what II ought TO be. III is not; Dut
that does not change the facts.
When the Indcr-Appcat says that
the law of the land is just what that
court declares it to be that paper
merely states an indisputable fact. For
example, Congress considered the civil
rights act constitutional, or that body
would not have passed it. But the Su-
preIHe Court of tho United States de-
cided that it was unconstitutional.
And unconstitutional it is. But the
court might have decided, and by
thousands was expected TO decide,
that the civil-rights act was constitu-
tional. If il had made this last deci-
sion, the civil-rights act would, in con-
temptation of law, have been constitu-
tional, and every court in the land
would have held it to be so. That is
allthat we or the Mdor-Appcalintended
10 say. 1t is literally true, therefore,
that "the Constitution and the laws Of
tho United States are just what the SUI
prcme Court decides them to be.
Fgercsy RPprovcd.
10 the EditOr Of the DisDdtch:
In paragraph you extracted yester-
day morning July odd from the iadcr-
1Ppc0i. and which you say "tcaches
good doctrine" the following sentence
occurs: "The Constitution and the
laws Of the United States are just what
the majority Of the Supreme Court de-
clares them to be, and should DC re-
spected and Obeyed rs such until that
court fnGs reason to reverse itself.
And IN the commencement of the third
paragraph of your editorial you repeat
"our contemporary teaches sound doc
trine.'
Can it be possible that such is your
real opinion of this double heresy? If
so, i beg you to excuse me for saying
that Go not see how you can pretend
to call yourself a Democrat. | recollect
few years ago, in an argument with
me, my good friend the late William
p. Bu1well said that he, who had been
brought up an old Wing, had become a
better Democrat than / was. re-
pliod-it was in the Treasury Office
that he did not know the first principle
of States rights Democracy we agreed
10 leave the point to Mr.. Hunter and
when | asked Mr.. Burwell, who was the
final Judge of what was constitutional,
and he replied that that power rested
exclusively i'll the Supreme Court Of
the United States, Mr.. Hunter at once
said that such was not the doctrine of
the Democratic party. 1t certainly was
not the doctrine of Mr.. Jefferson, espe-
cially as declared 10y him III the Ken
lucky resolutions. Nor of Mr.. Madi-
son, John Taylor, nor any other of the
fathers, as expressed by them in the
resolutions of 1893 and 1899. OF
course you know that in the year 1913
the Court of Appeals of Virginia, in
the case of Hunter Us. Martin 9th
Munford, PIP. $50, under the lead of
Judges Cabell and Koane, unanimous
~ denied the right of the Supreme
Court of the United States to appel
late jurisdiction over the State Of Vir-
ginia, as claimed by Judge Marshall
and refused to send up the record un
der writ Of error issued 10y him.* 1t
is well known that when, in 1919,
Judge Roane repeated his argument
against the appellate power of the jul
dietary in a pamphlet reply to die
tum of Judge Marsh Ms, that Mr. JEFF
fc1son gave that paper his warmest APP
piolatlCn. Jeflerson's Memoirs, Vol.
", PIP. 3lG.
IS tie war did not settle that point.
and 10 constitutional amendment has
vet robbed the State OF tins reserved
right, ! Go not see whence YOU derive
tic arguments to sustain your assertion
that this is "sound doctrine" But
even more here teal, and more extraor-
dnary lii "a paper claiming to be Demo
cratic, is your endorsement of the In
J.AppcQPS declaration that d" the
Constitution land the laws Of the
United state are Just what the ma
iCrity of the Supreme Court declares
them to be, and should be respected
and obeyed as such until that court
finds reason to reverse itself -
i. C., to change the Constitution
backwards and forwards at its pleasure
DO you not see, Mr.. Editor, with
what tremendous and unwarranted
power you clothe the judges that you
make them the masters of the people
Have you forgotten that Mr.. Jefferson
said "a Judiciary Independent of
king is very good thing but indie
pendence of the will of the people is
solecism ~? Have the words of John
Taylor, of Caroline, escaped you: That
"a right to legislate, subject to an in
subordinate right to construe and APP
ply, inverts responsibility by creating
an allegiance of law to Judgment in
stead of an allegiance of judgment to
law? Do you claim that precedent
overrides principle?
Shall j call your attention to the
words of Bancroft iii his " Plea for the
Constitution of the United States of
America" bis review of the legal-ten
der case-Jullian as. Greenman, 10
United States Reports, 42l ? In reply
to the claim of the court in that case,
that "the power of Congress to emit
bills OF credit is now clearly established
by decisions" Q1O United States Re-
ports, 44i) he says, Plea, page %
"a majority of the members of the
members of the Supreme Court have
no right to change and ought never de-
sire to change the Constitution ; had it
been otherwise, We might not now be
in the Union"
Again, page IA: "The Constitution
is law OF laws, binding every depart
ment of the Government and every
citizen. the President aud Congress,
the States and the Union, the court
and the people; and Interchangeable by
any act which either of the three
branches of the Government or all
three together may be called upon
to perform. Every opinion that is given